I don't understand what part of Romney's pledge to cut taxes on the 1% and broaden the tax base (i.e. raise taxes on everyone else) is supposed to be appealing to me. But I am willing to learn. If only someone could explain why I should feel good about that?

Don't forget that Romney saved the 2002 Olympics, largely by lobbying the federal government for hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. He can just do the same thing again to fix the US economy!

In all seriousness, I think this highlights the current problem. Set aside the party rhetoric and Romney and Obama are actually very similar candidates. In the scheme of things, Romney is a "moderate" old-school Republican who has historically supported universal access to healthcare. This explains his pick of Ryan to charge the hyper-conservative base. He knows that the base is his weakness.

Obama is actually a moderate Democrat (objectively less liberal than Clinton) that has been attempting to involve the other side in order try and avoid controversy to preserve a shot at a second term. His biggest problem right now is the disillusionment of younger voters that have supported him in the past. I'm fairly certain, though I don't have evidence to back it up, that a lot of younger voters (myself included) are completely disillusioned with government at a federal level and fed up with the gridlock that prevents real work and change from happening. If anything, the last four years have proven that gridlock is possible, so who cares? It won't get passed anyway.

To be perfectly honest, I actually don't care who the President is. Aside from military power, he can't impart change without Congress. I'm in Ohio and actually concentrating more on the Senate race (Josh Mandel is winning the 'Pants-on-fire' count for lying in political ads) than anything else.

I don't understand what part of Romney's pledge to cut taxes on the 1% and broaden the tax base (i.e. raise taxes on everyone else) is supposed to be appealing to me. But I am willing to learn. If only someone could explain why I should feel good about that?

Same here. Plz to 'splain.

Good luck. I posed the same question a week and a half ago and the closest thing we've had to a response is Eco-Logic accusing people of socialism.

Mitt Romney wants the centerpoint of his entire campaign to be his planned stewardship of the economy, yet we can't goad one of his supporters to mount even a half-hearted defense of supply-side voodoo phlogiston anymore. It really brings the Conservative mindset into perspective when they can't articulate a single reason why they're voting for the guy, but are dead set on doing it anyway.

To be perfectly honest, I actually don't care who the President is. Aside from military power, he can't impart change without Congress.

The repeal of DADT, the end of the American torture program, and the decision to stop deporting youths brought into the United States illegally at a young age are all changes affected without Congress. Supreme Court nominations also fall to the president's discretion.

Perhaps you're right. I subscribe to a fairly abundant mindset and think that there's incredible opportunity out there when we actually work together as a civil society.

The GOP platform of "I got mine, so fuck you" is quite distasteful to me, but to each their own. :shrug:

See, I am totally for the platform of "I got mine, so fuck you." I'm so into that you don't understand. I want that on a t-shirt and bumper sticker.

HOWEVER.

I still can't vote Republican because their platform is WAY over the top religious and in a lot of cases homophobic. Also because 9 out of 10 actual Republicans I meet in person or on the internet I feel like punching in the motherfucking face when they talk about politics.

Quote from: th'FOOL on August 23, 2012, 08:15:21 PM

I think its pretty clear that (once again) no matter who wins the election, we lose

No, he didn't. No one does it on their own. Everyone, every. single. person. has at some point received help from others and/or benefited from government.

If, at any point in time, he ran a small business, he likely benefited from the SBA. Banks pretty much won't lend without an SBA guarantee (which covers 50-75% of the loan). If he's ever purchased a home less than 417K (big if) it was backed by GSEs. If he ever drives on a road, it's because a government has paved it. The colleges he went to have received federal money. At some point, he's had employees. All of them have contributed to his success. Nothing in this world is a wholly singular effort.

Whether you like it or not, we're all in this together. We need less people thinking 'I did this on my own, suckers!' and more people acknowledging the help they get every single day to get to where they are.

The question is... how much should an individual be forced to contribute to that greater good?

I'm not saying Romney's cuts make any sense (they fucking don't - they are in fact asinine), but I'm also against the whole TAX THE FUCK OUT OF THE RICH THEY CAN AFFORD IT mindset, primarily because I make a lot of money, pay a lot of taxes, and candidly get fuck all relative to most people in benefit for it. The thought of paying more taxes makes me want to vomit. Or at the very least leave and go to a country where I get something reasonable and tangible for my high tax rate. Like at least attractive, less horrifically fat women. SOMETHING.

Actually Autistic, and I know this will be wildly unpopular here, but I don't care enough about debating with you all to do any more than that. It's helpless, and not even close to being worth my time.

It is what it is and we can agree to disagree. I'll stop the hit and run posts in here and let you all carry on amongst yourselves.

No, he didn't. No one does it on their own. Everyone, every. single. person. has at some point received help from others and/or benefited from government.

If, at any point in time, he ran a small business, he likely benefited from the SBA. Banks pretty much won't lend without an SBA guarantee (which covers 50-75% of the loan). If he's ever purchased a home less than 417K (big if) it was backed by GSEs. If he ever drives on a road, it's because a government has paved it. The colleges he went to have received federal money. At some point, he's had employees. All of them have contributed to his success. Nothing in this world is a wholly singular effort.

Whether you like it or not, we're all in this together. We need less people thinking 'I did this on my own, suckers!' and more people acknowledging the help they get every single day to get to where they are.

The question is... how much should an individual be forced to contribute to that greater good?

I'm not saying Romney's cuts make any sense (they fucking don't - they are in fact asinine), but I'm also against the whole TAX THE FUCK OUT OF THE RICH THEY CAN AFFORD IT mindset, primarily because I make a lot of money, pay a lot of taxes, and candidly get fuck all relative to most people in benefit for it. The thought of paying more taxes makes me want to vomit. Or at the very least leave and go to a country where I get something reasonable and tangible for my high tax rate. Like at least attractive, less horrifically fat women. SOMETHING.

Anybody making a lot of money as salary isn't making a lot of money and isn't rich. Once you've passed the boundary that your investments are beating your salary by a large margin, then you are doing pretty well and are in a position that your tax rate should be going down by a large margin in comparison to the middle class.

I'm a commercial underwriter, I've reviewed financials and tax returns up and down the spectrum, from firefighters to billionaires. The wealthy have avenues of income that have far lower tax percentages (long term investments are at 15%) and have access to more tax wright offs and deductions (and in larger amounts) than the middle class. My first thought when I see anything over a few thousand in the 'total taxes' box when reading a tax return of somebody moderately well off is "your doing it wrong". This is a tax code problem, one that I don't see Romney or Obama ever addressing.

Actually Autistic, and I know this will be wildly unpopular here, but I don't care enough about debating with you all to do any more than that. It's helpless, and not even close to being worth my time.

It is what it is and we can agree to disagree. I'll stop the hit and run posts in here and let you all carry on amongst yourselves.

Chris

Calling everything you disagree with "socislism" isn't exactly what I call debating.

Actually Autistic, and I know this will be wildly unpopular here, but I don't care enough about debating with you all to do any more than that. It's helpless, and not even close to being worth my time.

It is what it is and we can agree to disagree. I'll stop the hit and run posts in here and let you all carry on amongst yourselves.

Chris

I can make it real simple. Either you are part of the 1% and therefore like Romney's plan. In which case good on you, because that's probably the best case scenario for you to keep your 1% status.

Or, you just like supporting the 1% on the back of your increased tax burden. In which case I'd like to come out and say I'm part of the 1% and we can skip the government middle-man. Just send 10% of your income to my bank account. I'll send you an email. Look for "Nigerian prince" in the subject header.

Logged

A Pew Research Center poll found nearly half of Americans hold the false belief that TARP was passed under President Obama, while only 34 percent know it originated under Bush."Oh yeah?" Bush replied. "50% of the people were wrong."

To be perfectly honest, I actually don't care who the President is. Aside from military power, he can't impart change without Congress.

The repeal of DADT, the end of the American torture program, and the decision to stop deporting youths brought into the United States illegally at a young age are all changes affected without Congress. Supreme Court nominations also fall to the president's discretion.

Love these decisions or hate them, the president matters.

-Autistic Angel

'Repeal of DADT' is a cultural change, not a political one. We're going to keep torturing people regardless of who is President, we'll just get better at hiding it (or getting other countries to do it for us). And we're definitely going to keep deporting people because we're a pretty xenophobic lot. Pick a period in history and we've got some ethnic/religious group we've been hating on. As a quick example, prior to JFK no Catholic was elected President because it was felt that they would make the US answer to the Pope. SCOTUS nominations I'll give you, but they rule on the laws that Congress passes and the President signs.

In the scheme of everyday life, Congress has way more bearing. Which is why it's either really comical or really sad who we elect there and how little attention is paid to them.

To be perfectly honest, I actually don't care who the President is. Aside from military power, he can't impart change without Congress.

The repeal of DADT, the end of the American torture program, and the decision to stop deporting youths brought into the United States illegally at a young age are all changes affected without Congress. Supreme Court nominations also fall to the president's discretion.

Love these decisions or hate them, the president matters.

-Autistic Angel

'Repeal of DADT' is a cultural change, not a political one.

Sorry, this is why I typically avoid the use of acronyms and abbreviations.

By "the repeal of DADT," I was referring to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the government's official policy on allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the armed forces so long as they kept their sexual orientation strictly secret. Its enactment, enforcement, and eventual repeal is the very definition of political change.

You may be thinking of the Disney-ABC Domestic Television division and the cultural tides their policies shape and are shaped by, like the whole Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction kerfuffle. Extreme overreactions to a momentary glimpse of near-nudity amid a sea of erectile dysfunction ads is all about weird societal morays, so I'd agree with you there.

Quote from: Calavera on August 25, 2012, 08:20:00 AM

We're going to keep torturing people regardless of who is President, we'll just get better at hiding it (or getting other countries to do it for us).

Well, we don't have an option on the ballot for someone I can *guarantee* will abolish pro-torture policies forever. Our choice is between a Democratic ticket that says they don't torture people and a Republican one that boasts they will.

Even if their rhetoric were the only difference between them -- which would assume facts way outside the available evidence -- I prefer the guy who at least denounces it as a monstrous practice.

Quote from: Calavera on August 25, 2012, 08:20:00 AM

And we're definitely going to keep deporting people because we're a pretty xenophobic lot.

Some people deserve deportation. College students who have pursued productive, upstanding lives since being smuggled into the country illegally at the age of six, however, are not among them.

President Obama could not convince Republicans in congress to pass the DREAM Act they had once sponsored and claimed to support, so he issued an executive order to cease deportation efforts against undocumented youths and refocus our resources on drug runners and violent criminals. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have vowed to reverse that decision. For the tens of thousands of U.S.-raised, U.S.-educated, U.S.-employed tax payers who would face forcible ejection to a foreign country under their administration, I'll bet you the choice between candidates is a very big deal.

Quote from: Calavera on August 25, 2012, 08:20:00 AM

SCOTUS nominations I'll give you, but they rule on the laws that Congress passes and the President signs.

For or against, everybody understands that the Citizens United ruling single-handedly overturned *decades* of campaign finance and political speech precedent. Every single political race in the country is feeling its effects, as anyone with the wherewithal to pursue them can funnel anonymous, unlimited donations from anywhere in the world into their campaign. We're only just starting to witness the influence this sort mega-donor focus is going to have on our political system, and personally, I believe that no matter how this current election cycle turns out, the one that follows will be completely bought and paid for by a very small number of fantastically wealthy individuals.

This is not a matter of "calling balls and strikes" -- it's the introduction of a couple new umpires who decide the existing rules for pitching and hitting are no longer valid.

Quote from: Calavera on August 25, 2012, 08:20:00 AM

In the scheme of everyday life, Congress has way more bearing. Which is why it's either really comical or really sad who we elect there and how little attention is paid to them.

I agree. For clarity, I'm not trying to suggest that Congress doesn't matter, or even that they matter less. I'm simply pointing out that the President has a great deal of sway all by himself.

In the scheme of everyday life, Congress has way more bearing. Which is why it's either really comical or really sad who we elect there and how little attention is paid to them.

Congressional elections aren't national except to the extent that out-of-state funding influences the outcome. They do get plenty of attention at the state level, as they should.

Early in the campaign for the Kennedy Senate seat, Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren agreed to forgo out-of-state funding. The agreement says that if any outside entity runs an ad for one of the candidates, that candidate has to make a donation equal to half of the ad's cost to a charity of his opponent's choice. To everybody's surprise, it's worked. There haven't been any super PAC ads since each candidate paid the fine once at the beginning of the race. If it weren't for their funding agreement, this matchup would be drawing lots of outside influence (Brown's last victory was paid for with tea party money).

Sorry, this is why I typically avoid the use of acronyms and abbreviations.

By "the repeal of DADT," I was referring to Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the government's official policy on allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the armed forces so long as they kept their sexual orientation strictly secret. Its enactment, enforcement, and eventual repeal is the very definition of political change.

You may be thinking of the Disney-ABC Domestic Television division and the cultural tides their policies shape and are shaped by, like the whole Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction kerfuffle. Extreme overreactions to a momentary glimpse of near-nudity amid a sea of erectile dysfunction ads is all about weird societal morays, so I'd agree with you there.

LOL, this wins on so many levels.

Arguably DADT (in the first sense) was brought on by cultural changes that were more accepting toward the LBGT community. DADT was an initial reaction to the change, it's repeal will also be reactions to further mainstreaming. I think we just see the definition of political and cultural change differently. When I say it's a cultural change, I mean that changes in culture drive the changes in politics (e.g., DADT). When I hear 'political change', I think that it is a change in public policy that drives a change in culture (e.g., the civil rights movement of the 1960s).

You may be thinking of the Disney-ABC Domestic Television division and the cultural tides their policies shape and are shaped by, like the whole Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction kerfuffle. Extreme overreactions to a momentary glimpse of near-nudity amid a sea of erectile dysfunction ads is all about weird societal morays, so I'd agree with you there.

To be perfectly honest, I actually don't care who the President is. Aside from military power, he can't impart change without Congress.

The repeal of DADT, the end of the American torture program, and the decision to stop deporting youths brought into the United States illegally at a young age are all changes affected without Congress.

That's not true. DADT was repealed by Congress in December 2010. It was a law, and had to be repealed by Congress.

To be perfectly honest, I actually don't care who the President is. Aside from military power, he can't impart change without Congress.

The repeal of DADT, the end of the American torture program, and the decision to stop deporting youths brought into the United States illegally at a young age are all changes affected without Congress.

That's not true. DADT was repealed by Congress in December 2010. It was a law, and had to be repealed by Congress.

You're right. The issue I had in mind was that the repeal came with a provision that required the President to concur with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Conservative claims about homosexuals eroding our military readiness were so much bollocks.

John McCain voted against the repeal and insisted that it would inflict grievous harm on our armed forces, even after the official Pentagon study concluded the opposite. I don't think there's any doubt that if he'd been elected in 2008, DADT would still be in effect today.